Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 5 November 2010

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

Hi, NM -- could you explain this edit I just don't understand the edit summary ("Removed ref which led to some unrelated publicity...") Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

David, have you followed the link? Not much about Maigue Poets there, with the possible exception of Wrinkle Cream, which they could doubtless do with after 300 years. But maybe you're questioning my edit note: I do try to make these comprehensible but maybe this one isn't, in which case I apologize (it can't be modified). Nick Michael (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

James Dean

David, I should have handled that postmortem correction better– you had the right idea. I spotted the missing preposition and realized the paragraph needed more, but you were on the right track.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Namespace vio

I have moved User talk sandbox:DavidOaks to User:DavidOaks/sandbox. — ] (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

oops -- thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Devil's Playground (film)

David, there's a rule somewhere around here that states that article talk pages are for discussing articles, not the editors. Secondly, the current use of your user page might not be the best way for you to gain recognition as a serious academic. Thirdly, the Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so editors will have to put up with other editors (who might not even be subject matter experts) barging in and giving their 2 cents. And finally, if you want to pick on academics, try me for size ;) Take it easy. --Kudpung (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, you listened to someone who was engaged in bad conduct -- demonstrable untruths against an editor with a very good record -- and added your own bad conduct to it. Thoughtlessness rather than malice, but bad conduct nonetheless. Your own good record as an editor makes this especially distressing. Just figure this as one of your bad days; if you keep defending it, it becomes a pattern rather than an exception to one. Now, as to the academic thing -- I didn't say I was one (though you self-identify as such). I said there is an animus at WP against academics, and your remarks make it clear that when you think you sense one, you particpate in that ill-will. I would accept your offer to "take you on," but what I keep encountering is a distressing refusal to respond to the actual and specific issues raised. I rarely respond to disputes of this kind (I guess because I am rarely involved with them) but the crappiness of behavior combined with the smugness with which it's defended provide unusual motivation. When teachers cite this sort of thing as one of the chief reasons why classroom use of Misplaced Pages is destructive rather than educational, it gets hard to argue with. Once again, the behavior here is unusual. Were it otherwise, cumulative wikipolicy in discussions not going one's way would be to complain, lie, and get intervention, while dodging all reasonable requests for discussion. I take the opportunity to flag misbehavior so that we don't end up there. DavidOaks (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I really would appreciate it if you removed those comments from your user page. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I will happily comply with a specific and reasoned request. Which comments do you wish removed, and why? DavidOaks (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You've read my mind. :-) Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

alt med

Thanks David. Do you think it should read: "According to the White House...." Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunno -- thge White House is a building, and doesn't say anything (at work, I have a policy of refusing to take calls from anything but human beings) -- I'd name the specific organization within the executive branch. DavidOaks (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting on You.

Well? >>> Talk:The Cowboys > Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? WP:UNDUE has to do with Point-of-View versus Neutral POV. The mentions of the Ruby River, near where it meets the Beaverhead River, in the mid 1870s, and the rail-head at Belle Fourche, South Dakota are: 1) in the book by William Dale Jennings; 2) in the script written by Irving Ravetch, Harriet Frank, Jr., and Jennings; and 3) in the film directed by Mark Rydell and produced and released by Warner Bros. There is no POV/NPOV about it. It is just the fact of the way it is. I don't understand your application of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do people come to Misplaced Pages? To learn. This is an encyclopedia. The great advantage of Misplaced Pages over a paper/hard bound encyclopedia and most other sites on the Internet is that a user who wants to learn about something can use hyperlinks to easily dig deeper about something that they might want to know more about. If they, don't, they don't need to click on the link. If you go to a site like IMDb or TCM, you can read about The Cowboys, but what if you want to know more about the setting, or filming location, or something like that? At those sites, you can't find out about the Ruby River, or Belle Fourche. You have to go and find another site. The beauty and advantage of Misplaced Pages is being able to have articles about these other topics and subjects and linking them together. This enhances the learning process. Be removing that, you take away the advantage. As long as things are factual and cited, and pertains to the article, let it stand.

As for the "Plot" section length, you guys need to get together an establish a guideline of how long that section should be. To me, a good size chunk, say 1/4th to 1/3th of the article can be in the "Plot" section. That article is now only 7,450 bytes long. There are some film articles in Misplaced Pages that are much larger, up over 50,000 (Citizen Kane is 94,449 bytes). Now of course some of these films that are larger should be larger, they had a bigger impact on American culture and on other filmmakers. The Cowboys is just a little Western and is only liked mainly by John Wayne fans. I personally think that Roscoe Lee Browne and Bruce Dern are very good in this film, they almost upstage Wayne. The rest of the cast could be changed, but those two are good. These people who around putting in the "plot is too short" and the "plot is too long" tags need to find something else to do. Like just add to it or subtract, or add to another section. I would love to see the "Production" section expanded on films.

When I watch a film, I want to know where it was set, I want to know when it was set, I want to learn about the setting, what was going on at that time in that place. I want to know where it was filmed. Now of course this is just me, and what I like. But I am sure that there are other people out there like me. So, when a film (or book, etc.) mentions something like a gold strike on the Ruby River I want to find out where it is, when did this happen, etc. Not everybody is a like, but it is better to default to those who want to know about it, than those that don't to take advantage of Misplaced Pages's capabilities. Some of you guys don't seem to want anymore information that is in Halliwell's Film Guide, or similar work. But, then what is the point of having Misplaced Pages and the ability to use links and have larger-more filled out-articles?

I also added the fact about the Dillard Fant and the Santa Rosa over two years ago. It was fine. But, Monkeyzpop is a stubborn KIA and I don't feel like fighting him. The Dillard Fant/Santa Rosa is not in Jennings book, it was added in the film (probably to see if anybody was paying attention). I don't know why it was added, or who added it, and the film isn't big enough for somebody to go find out. I think directors personally put stuff in films to screw with the audience and see if they are watching. Why I think it is important, is in the scene between Wayne and Dern, the scene is about "lies" and principals. I think that Rydell used a factual lie to justify the lie of that guy not working there. It was a trick (ironic joke) by Rydell on the viewer. But, I am probably one of the few people to want to call him on it. It was done for a reason, a reason that will blow past most viewers.

If you look at my edits, I don't just put shit in for shit's sake. I have references, I put in facts. I don't add willy-nilly stuff, but have a reason. But, I am not going to fight you guys. You know what you want and have your agendas and I don't understand them. I just wish you guys would point out where in the MOS or Help section it says that information can't stay? I can't tell if you guys are making up your own rules or not? I strongly disagree with your use of WP:UNDUE, it says in the opening sentence: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"."

The facts of the Ruby River being mentioned in the book, the script, and the film, are just that FACTS, not any viewpoint what-so-ever. There is no POV in the facts, they are neutral. Anybody who watches the film or takes the time to read the book can not say that the Ruby River and Belle Fourche are NOT mentioned in them. I respectfully request that you go and re-read WP:UNDUE again, and then come up with some other reason why my contribution don't belong. That entire section is filled with the words "views", "viewpoint", "fringe theories", etc., The fact is that they are mentioned in the book and the film, there is no "weight" here, facts are facts. It was not Original Research, it was in the book and film, it is easily verifiable, just read the book or watch the film (or read the script). How can I be in the "minority" if I got it straight from the horses-mouth? Guess I will go bang my head against a brick wall now. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How in the world does a discussion about your interpretation of WP:UNDUE belong on the Talk:The Cowboys page? While a discussion of your edit of the Ruby River, etc., et al., may belong there, I don't see how our discussing how you understand and remove content because of it from articles has anything to do with that article? It could be about any article, not just that one. This is about you and POV not about The Cowboys. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Compassion & Choices Edit

Hi, David. Sorry I didn't include a reason for my edit earlier. Today I was working on clarifying the Category:Assisted suicide so organizations and laws within the Death with Dignity movement were no longer lumped in with William Francis Melchert-Dinkel. I created two subcategories: Category:Death with Dignity movement and Category:Physician-assisted suicide. For Category:Death with Dignity movement I thought it made sense to only include organizations and people active within the movement; whereas, Category:Physician-assisted suicide would be for laws and rulings in favor of physician-assisted suicide. What are your thoughts? Thanks! Melissathebarber (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page. You're rational for keeping both categories makes sense to me. I'll work on the related articles to make sure they're consistent. Thanks again for your help. Melissathebarber (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Man

Hi. In the light of the current dispute regarding the inclusion of an image in the article Man, and the heated exchanges that have led to the need to temporarily protect the article, I have started an RFC at Talk:Man#RFC: image in article. Please do add your opinion, and hopefully we can achieve a policy-based consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

False etymology > Folk Etymology_Folk_Etymology-2010-10-17T04:18:00.000Z">

You participated in a discussion on the page Folk etymology as to whether it should be moved to False etymology. Despite the consensus on that discussion, the move was effected. I have requested that the move be reversed. I am notifying you as a party to that prior discussion. If you are interested, the current discussion is located here.μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)_Folk_Etymology"> _Folk_Etymology">

Mondegreen

Once again I invite you to remove the non-referenced examples from the article. But there is no burden on me to let your edit stand simply because a part of it is valid. And I do agree that a part of it is valid.μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

(User Medeis)

For the record, here's what s/he deleted from her/his own talk-page; the user has been warned repeatedly about edit-warring and abrasive communication; there ought to be some sort of record... - - You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DavidOaks - - You were invited, numerous times, to use the talk page, and chose not to do so. You were advised of wikipolicy. 3RR does not apply to reverting those in violation of policy. Look above, and you will observe that you have received good and diplomatic counsel in the past about your style of communication. DavidOaks (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuquoque

Just out of curiosity, I get no hits at dictionary.com for tuquoque. Can you assist? Were you referring to "tu quoque" (thou also)? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Yeah, you too!" So when editor X says I'm pushing a POV, I can say....Dang, I can be pedantic....DavidOaks (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

warning

You have reached WP:3RR at Folk etymology. If you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. If you do not think you can get justice on the talk page, please pursue WP:RFC or other avenues of dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any point in repeating to you that dozens of reliable third party resources such as textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias refer to the technical term "folk etymology" with a very specific meaning while you refer to snopes and sources which do not even use the term. You have yet to provide an argument that any reliable source provides any alternative main sense for this well defined and referenced concept.

You are ignoring the consensus of three editors.

You have been invited to add your comments in any of several alternative venues.

You continue to cite Snopes as your best reference, and to add a highly inappropraite demand that I provide a reference for material which you yourself added to the article.

I have avoided requesting that you be sanctioned, given your actions seem well intentioned, if misguided, and that other paths are open to you. In payment for my attempts at tolerance you have filed misguided complaints. Be advised I will provide no more warnings.μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

We will let this admin process run its course. Meanwhile, kinda busy -- giving an invited talk at a folklore congress on linguistic approaches to paremiological research on the internet. DavidOaks (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please learn how to link. I tried to follow your link to an AN/I comment, but the link just goes to the page without linking to a specific section. I found no AN/I complaint at WP:AN/I relevant to Kwami and Medeis. --Taivo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those two found it just fine. Please learn some manners. DavidOaks (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those two found it after another editor pointed them to it. It is not at WP:AN/I, but at WP:AN3. My manners are fine. I was blunt and if your links do not lead to where the complaint is, then you do, indeed, need to learn how to link properly. --Taivo (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See, you found it. And you still need manners. I know that this is not a problem with all linguists, because I know a great many intimately. But it does seem to be an issue with the local group. DavidOaks (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Besides your RfC wording being an inaccurate description of the positions at Folk etymology, you inserted the your RfC in the middle of an existing thread. I am getting quite tired of your endless personal accusations, uncivil attitude, sloppy and unsigned edits, and inappropriate behavior. Edit warring does not only consist of multiple reverts. Keep your remarks civil and impersonal, and be careful with your edits, or I will file a formal complaint. You will receive no further warnings.μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)